I Believe Religion Is All Complete Nonsense And Is Just A Way Of Segregating Us .

If You Look At Every Major War They Where All Started With Some Sort Of Religion Being Involved.

Why Is It Most Different Religions Tell Similiar Stories But With Different Character Names Why Can't We Just Look Past Religion And Put All Religion Together To Find The Real Myths Behind These Stories.

If You Look At The " Jesus " Aspect Of Things It Never Said Anything About His Childhood And Also If He Was Alive Today He Would Be Percieved As A Madman So Why Is It People Continue To Believe Ancient Stories About A Man Who I Believe Was Nothing More Than A Storyteller

.agree Or Disagree Think About It With Open Eyes.

It's amazing, how arrested and arduous a process it was trying to read a paragraph typed like that.

People are naturally scared of their own mortality.

When confronted by a religious text that tells them that, for the small price of their devotion, all their worries about death and trouble in life will be assuaged, they fail to recognize that the words being spoken are metaphor, and do not correspond to "real" events or people.

However, they blindly accept the words as gospel, and begin to impose this symbolic artifice upon the apparent world, thus they begin to believe that a sun-baked Jew with a resentment to nature could actually turn water into an alcoholic beverage.

Blaphbee,

People are naturally scared of their own mortality.

Real fear cannot be overcome with mere words. If fear has been overcome then it becomes transparent for all to see.

When confronted by a religious text that tells them that, for the small price of their devotion, all their worries about death and trouble in life will be assuaged, they fail to recognize that the words being spoken are metaphor, and do not correspond to "real" events or people.

I fail to see where you have the right to assert that all religious people are simple and gullable, especially in light of the fact that you're understanding of what religion and scriptures is terribly influenced by what everyone else spouts, also without realising that you're ignorance has been easily uncovered.
Maybe if you elaborated on your claims,giving examples and experiences which we can all share in, i would be prepared to change my mind.

However, they blindly accept the words as gospel, and begin to impose this symbolic artifice upon the apparent world, thus they begin to believe that a sun-baked Jew with a resentment to nature could actually turn water into an alcoholic beverage.

Do you actually have anything intelligent to say?

Jan Ardena.

...transparent for all to see.
HUH?
I fail to see where you have the right to assert that all religious people are simple and gullable, especially in light of the fact that you're understanding of what religion and scriptures is terribly influenced by what everyone else spouts.
Well said.

b0urgeoisie,

HUH?



You know when someone has overcome fear. Martin Luther King is a good example.

Jan Ardena.

1 - Real fear cannot be overcome with mere words. If fear has been overcome then it becomes transparent for all to see.

2 - I fail to see where you have the right to assert that all religious people are simple and gullable, especially in light of the fact that you're understanding of what religion and scriptures is terribly influenced by what everyone else spouts, also without realising that you're ignorance has been easily uncovered.
Maybe if you elaborated on your claims,giving examples and experiences which we can all share in, i would be prepared to change my mind.

3 - Do you actually have anything intelligent to say?

1 - That's hilariously incoherent, and a terrible analogy, yet I do agree. However, I fail to see what it has to do with the statement it is supposed to refute...?

2 - Meaningless rhetorical questions about "rights" , and your ham-fisted efforts to pompously declare my words "ignorant" without providing any substantive reasons [i]why aside, I will attempt a brief elaboration.

Some links:

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=4363
http://www.fns.org.uk/ac.htm
Read Sections 8 to 10 of the first essay. (http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/onthe.htm)

Say what you will to demonize Nietzsche and thus attempt to discredit his ideas, these books paint the psychological portrait of Judeo-Christianity. Understanding this, you might see that Christians are a death-fearing lot, and seek whatever solace from their own mortality that they can find. I would never generalize all religious practitioners as being "gullible", but when looking for easy answers to hard questions, or an escape out of terrible situations (in this case, escape from a life which holds nothing but struggle for a person or people not constitutionally equipped to deal with it), most people will begin to believe whatever you tell them;* if this happens to include some rather strange events, like someone being raised from the dead, or the ocean bisecting itself at a wave of a hand, then you will maybe be halted for a moment in skepticism, but think to yourself, "Well, it was pretty hot in those deserts. Who knows what mirages they thought they saw?"

Basically, religious stories of this sort are exactly that: stories. Metaphor. Symbolic representations of the truth (as perceived by that religion). Parables to describe esoteric concepts with which to guide oneself through life. When people begin to interpret these symbolisms literally, insanity is manifesting itself.

3 - Do you have anything other than Pavlovian reactions to a little good-humoured mockery?

* - Somewhat related is a description of Stockholm Syndrome, thusly:

STOCKHOLM SYNDROME
The Stockholm Syndrome is an emotional attachment, a bond of interdependence between captive and captor that develops 'when someone threatens your life, deliberates, and doesn't kill you.' (Symonds, 1980) The relief resulting from the removal of the threat of death generates intense feelings of gratitude and fear which combine to make the captive reluctant to display negative feelings toward the captor or terrorist. In fact, former hostages have visited their captors in jail, recommended defense counsel, and even started a defense fund. It is this dynamic which causes former hostages and abuse survivors to minimize the damage done to them and refuse to cooperate in prosecuting their tormentors.

"The victims' need to survive is stronger than his(sic) impulse to hate the person who has created his(sic) dilemma." (Strentz, 1980) The victim comes to see the captor as a 'good guy', even a savior. This condition...occurs in response to the four specific conditions listed below:
-A person threatens to kill another and is perceived as having the capability to do so.
The other cannot escape, so her or his life depends on the threatening person.
-The threatened person is isolated from outsiders so that the only other perspective available to her or him is that of the threatening person.
-The threatening person is perceived as showing some degree of kindness to the one being threatened.
-It takes only 3-4 days for the characteristic bond of the Stockholm syndrome to emerge when captor and captive are strangers. After that, research shows, the duration of captivity is no longer relevant.

It's amazing, how arrested and arduous a process it was trying to read a paragraph typed like that.

People are naturally scared of their own mortality.

When confronted by a religious text that tells them that, for the small price of their devotion, all their worries about death and trouble in life will be assuaged, they fail to recognize that the words being spoken are metaphor, and do not correspond to "real" events or people.

However, they blindly accept the words as gospel, and begin to impose this symbolic artifice upon the apparent world, thus they begin to believe that a sun-baked Jew with a resentment to nature could actually turn water into an alcoholic beverage.

Right sorted out my paragraphs for you but I fail to understand where you have managed to answer my question .
Yes people may need something to believe in but why not believe in there own experiences and mind without people trying to brain wash people in certain ways with what I believe where no more then very good books and story tellers .
I'm a believer in evolution not creation and understand some of these stories may be true but still am unsure because in different religions they have very similiar stories but with different characters and I believe most religion is just different peoples perseption on certain events.

I Believe Religion Is All Complete Nonsense And Is Just A Way Of Segregating Us .

If You Look At Every Major War They Where All Started With Some Sort Of Religion Being Involved.



No major Civilization has risen up without the structure of a Religious Framework. And the deadliest Wars have come out of Barbaric Invasions where Religion was not an issue.

The Deadliest Wars and Revolutions the World has yet seen came in the 20th Century and were entirely Secular.

You need to go to school, or at least read a book or two.

No major Civilization has risen up without the structure of a Religious Framework. And the deadliest Wars have come out of Barbaric Invasions where Religion was not an issue.

The Deadliest Wars and Revolutions the World has yet seen came in the 20th Century and were entirely Secular.

You need to go to school, or at least read a book or two.

Name these major wars that have not been started by religious backround to them and I will correct you and I do read plenty of books you cocky B******.

Name these major wars that have not been started by religious backround to them and I will correct you and I do read plenty of books you cocky B******.

Hitite Invasion of Egypt

Babylonnian Invasion a Assyria

Assyrian Invasion of Israel

Babylonian Invasion of Israel

Persian Invasion of Greece

The Peloponesian Wars

Alexanders Invasion of Persia

The Civil Wars of the Three Alexandrian Territories

The Roman Carthegenian Wars

Roman Conquest of Gaul

Barbarian Invasions of Rome

Norman Conquest of Europe

The Slavic Border Wars

The Mongol Conquest of China

The Mongol Conquest of Persia

The French Revolution

The Napoleanic Wars

The Manchu Conquest of China

The Crimea War

The American Revolution and Civil Wars

The Two World Wars

The Russian Revolution

The Chinese Revolution

The Vietnam War

The Iraqi Iranian War

The Balkan Civil Wars -- still ongoing.

There is a partial list.

and now name the ones, that were started by religion, far too many.
you dont have a page long enough.

oh by the way, I dont think he meant christian only, all religions past and present.

romans believed there ceasar was a god, as did the egyptians believe pharoah was.

bablonians,persians and hitites had their own religions. etc (if I continue I will be here forever.)
your arguement is invalid. leo (99% of wars were directly due to religion)

Well, with that argument: name any socio-political system that didn't rise out of "religion". You'll have to look for a society that didn't practice any form of religion. I dare you to find one.

hence, why she said his arguement was invalid.
and I'm sure she would thank you for you comment.
it helps her tremendously.

And she's welcome to it. My point is that if you move the bar back far enough, everything is attributable to "religion", not just wars (for as much as they are influenced by purely religious thought). The argument relies on making religion a foreign actor in events, and artificially isolating it as a negative influence. You can't do that.

Jenyar: My point is that if you move the bar back far enough, everything is attributable to "religion", not just wars (for as much as they are influenced by purely religious thought). The argument relies on making religion a foreign actor in events, and artificially isolating it as a negative influence. You can't do that.
*************
M*W: I disagree. Not everything has been based on "religious thought." The PHILOSOPHY of Jesus was one of mysticism. He wasn't practicing a new religion -- he was a Jewish Rabbi! Perhaps the powers that be in his time saw him as a "new age" cultist. Jesus' intent was not to start a new religion but to teach about the greatness of the soul -- something that Jews didn't talk about apparently. Jesus was truly enlightened, and his immediate followers were at times confused by what he "preached." I believe it was only MM who understood his true enlightenment and wisdom. I also believe that it was MM who showed Jesus the way of wisdom. Of course, she could not be credited with that at the time. After all, it was MM who anointed Jesus. That should say it all.

and now name the ones, that were started by religion, far too many.
you dont have a page long enough.

oh by the way, I dont think he meant christian only, all religions past and present.

romans believed there ceasar was a god, as did the egyptians believe pharoah was.

bablonians,persians and hitites had their own religions. etc (if I continue I will be here forever.)
your arguement is invalid. leo (99% of wars were directly due to religion)

THANKYOU

M*W, no matter how you try to twist it: philosophy about God = religion.

expand please
if i were to philosophize on religion, would that make me religious? the philosophy of any given subject deals with the epistemological underpinnings, the methodology and ontologies of said subjects. is that not a valid distinction from studying or following any particular religion?

everything is attributable to "religion"

well, get specific. i wish to learn

Jenyar: M*W, no matter how you try to twist it: philosophy about God = religion.
*************
M*W: No, Jenyar, YOU are the one who twists the meanings of things! Even atheists have a philosophy about God, and it
doesn't include religion. You are truly blinded by the light of Christianity! Jesus was a Jew, therefore, Christianity is the Antichrist! Dance around that!

Kasi,

That's because "religion" is a very broad term itself. People don't realize that because they immediately associate it with a specific religion, like Christianity. Philosophy about religion isn't religion, because it says nothing about God. To say Jesus was just a philosopher is inaccurate. Theology and philosophy does overlap, but they're not the same thing.

everything is attributable to "religion" just means that people were religious before they were scientists, philosophers, farmers or any other profession - and every institution known to man has developed out of professions. They're the infrastructure of society. I doubt we would have moral codes at all if it wasn't for religious convictions. Have a look at the code of Hammurabi (http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM) for instance. And the Bible contains one of the very first constitutions, regulating the nation of Israel.

I'm not saying that everything that anybody ever did was a direct result of religious thinking, but that religion was always a context. Today, the West likes to think of science, logic and reason to be that context - but these still rely heavily on the foundations of the previous era.

M*W: No, Jenyar, YOU are the one who twists the meanings of things! Even atheists have a philosophy about God, and it
doesn't include religion.
There are two options: philosophy about the God of a certain religion, or philosophy about a philosophical god-construct. The latter isn't a religion only because nobody thinks that god exists. They used to, though: it was Zeus and his daughter, the nine muses (http://www.cosmopolis.com/muses/muses.html). Atheists either include religion implicitly, or they reject religion explicitly, in which case they're left without a god. They could adopt a personal god, like yours, but that requires a lot of "dancing" - as you call it - to stay outside the boundaries of religion while doing what religion does best.
You are truly blinded by the light of Christianity! Jesus was a Jew, therefore, Christianity is the Antichrist! Dance around that!
Flawless logic, indeed. Abraham was a Semite, does that make his children antisemitic? How does being for Christ make us anti-Christ?

Where does your definition of antichrist even come from?

*************
M*W: This is what YOU SAID, Jenyar:

"M*W, no matter how you try to twist it: philosophy about God = religion."

Then, you danced around your post until you came up with this explanation:

"There are two options: philosophy about the God of a certain religion, or philosophy about a philosophical god-construct. The latter isn't a religion only because nobody thinks that god exists."

So, what are you trying to say after all that dancing around your first statement? That you were in ERROR?

And what was your purpose to include a link about Zeus? More dancing around the subject?

"They used to, though: it was Zeus and his daughter, the nine muses (http://www.cosmopolis.com/muses/muses.html)."

Then you dance a little faster and include your definition of atheists:

"Atheists either include religion implicitly, or they reject religion explicitly, in which case they're left without a god. They could adopt a personal god, like yours, but that requires a lot of "dancing" - as you call it - to stay outside the boundaries of religion while doing what religion does best."

Then you dance around Abraham:

"Flawless logic, indeed. Abraham was a Semite, does that make his children antisemitic? How does being for Christ make us anti-Christ?"

Even though this has been addressed many times before on this forum, you still don't get it. When anyone replies to one of your posts, you put on your tap shoes and go to town!

And for an encore, you said:

"Where does your definition of antichrist even come from?"

My definition of antichrist is anyone or anything that is not of Christ, as was Jesus who was a Jewish Rabbi, Paul from Tarsus CREATED the myth of Jesus the Messiah, and I see that as antichrist, too. Jesus was NOT a christian and would NOT have wanted his people to be anything but Jews, therefore, christianity is the antichrist. The NT is also the book of the antichrist. And even I am an antichrist! Get it now??? I doubt it. Go ahead and believe the lies, who cares?

Unless you can prove that Paul from Tarsus wrote the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, I don't know how you can seriously hold that view.

Read my lips: "philosophy about God = religion". You know who my God is, and who I was talking about. I don't believe in a philosophical God, I believe in a historical God. You made exactly the mistake I was talking about: automatically associating "God" with a certain version of him - in this case, yours. Now I ask you, what is the difference between your philosophies about a "powerful force of pure positive energy", and religion?

Jenyar: Unless you can prove that Paul from Tarsus wrote the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, I don't know how you can seriously hold that view.
*************
M*W: From The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, by Hyam Maccoby

"We should remember that the New Testament, as we have it, is much more dominated by Paul than appears at first sight. As we read it, we come across the Four Gospels, of which Jesus is the hero, and do not encounter Paul as a character until we embark on the post-Jesus narrative of Acts. Then we finally come into contact with Paul himself, in his letters. But this impression is misleading, for the earliest writings in the New Testament are actually Paul's letters, which were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until the period AD 70-110. This means that the theories of Paul were already before the writers of the Gospels and coloured their interpretations of Jesus' activities. Paul is, in a sense, present from the very first word of the New Testament."
*************
Jenyar: Read my lips: "philosophy about God = religion". You know who my God is, and who I was talking about.
*************
M*W: There's only one god, so who's YOUR god?
*************
Jenyar: I don't believe in a philosophical God, I believe in a historical God.
*************
M*W: LOL, now I've heard it all! An "historical" God! Prove that your God exists and is an historical God!
*************
Jenyar: You made exactly the mistake I was talking about: automatically associating "God" with a certain version of him - in this case, yours.
*************
M*W: Everyone has their own image of what God means to them -- or they don't have an image at all. Are you implying that anyone who doesn't understand YOUR concept of God is wrong? Then you're a hypocrite. (But we already knew that). The God YOU believe in is the the same God that Jesus believed in. Again, you're a hypocrite.
*************
Jenyar: Now I ask you, what is the difference between your philosophies about a "powerful force of pure positive energy", and religion?
*************
M*W: The difference is it's about science -- not religion. The God of science CAN be proven. The God of religion CANNOT.

M*W: From The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, by Hyam Maccoby

"We should remember that the New Testament, as we have it, is much more dominated by Paul than appears at first sight. As we read it, we come across the Four Gospels, of which Jesus is the hero, and do not encounter Paul as a character until we embark on the post-Jesus narrative of Acts. Then we finally come into contact with Paul himself, in his letters. But this impression is misleading, for the earliest writings in the New Testament are actually Paul's letters, which were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until the period AD 70-110. This means that the theories of Paul were already before the writers of the Gospels and coloured their interpretations of Jesus' activities. Paul is, in a sense, present from the very first word of the New Testament."
What he's talking about is the priority of extant manuscripts. I don't see where he proves Pauline influence in the gospels yet. Maybe you should quote some more.

M*W: There's only one god, so who's YOUR god?
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. There are more gods, but none of them really exist. Yours only exists as a scientific force - in which case I still wonder why you're not content to call it a scientific force, but insist on spiritualising it. Has any science ever proved a spiritual realm?

Jenyar: What he's talking about is the priority of extant manuscripts. I don't see where he proves Pauline influence in the gospels yet. Maybe you should quote some more.
*************
M*W: Dancing again? You haven't read Maccoby's book, but you're surely quick to decry it.
*************
Jenyar: The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. There are more gods, but none of them really exist.
*************
M*W: How can you be so sure they don't exist? You can rightfully say that they don't exist in YOUR mind, but you cannot say they don't exist. That's ONLY your perception. Maybe other people in the world perceive different concepts of the one god. You said you belive in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Again, you are lying! You believe Jesus was god, and you believe in trinity -- three gods in one! So, you don't really believe in the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- that was the ancient pre-Hebrew god -- the Elohim (plural gods). The elohim probably included Lucifer as well or his dominions. Since Abraham was the first patriarch noted to conceive the one-god theory, this is actually a Muslim belief. Abraham, too, was the father of Islam. Therefore, you must be part-Muslim.
*************
M*W: From The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, by Hyam Maccoby:

"In Pauline Christianity, on the other hand, the gnosis which the saviour brings is nothing but the knowledge of the saving power of his own death. He functions as a sacrifice, but only if the initiate is aware of his sacrificial power and shares, by 'faith', in the saviour's sacrificial experience. This idea is derived wholly from the mystery cults, in which precisely the same mystery of sharing in the death and resurrection of the deity was central."

"This explains why the Gnostic Christians were condemned as heretics, for they could never accept this sacrificial aspect of Pauline salvation doctrine, the aspect derived from the mystery cults. For them, Christ was a bringer of secret knowledge, not a sacrificial figure. They therefore denied that he ever died on the cross, saying that this was mere appearance; consequently, their heresy was known as 'Docetism', from a Greek word meaning 'to appear' or 'to seem'. The Gnostics, with their radical opposition between spirit and matter, could not accept that Christ was material enough to undergo a sacrificial experience; that would argue that he had truly become flesh, for only the flesh could undergo such real suffering. But for Paul, it was essential that Christ should be a real sacrifice, not just a seeming one. Otherwise, the burden of sin, for which all mankind deserved death, could not be rolled away. Consequently, Christ had to be made sufficiently material to undergo such a death. The descent into matter of the divine saviour was part of both myths; but for the Gnostics, this descent was sacrifice enough and was undertaken only because the imparting of [/I]gnosis would be impossible without it. But for Paul, with his mind full of sacrificial imagery, with his conviction of the saving power of the shedding of blood and the undergoing of torture (derived from his youthful experience of the horrific Attis cult), such bloodless imparting of secrets was unsatisfying. There had to be a cosmic agony to answer to the agony of his own soul. He therefore turned from the sophistication and intellectuality of the Gnostics to the primitive imagery of the mystery cults, derived from prehistoric rites of human sacrifice."6 [6: Of course, there were other factors also leading to the condemnation of the Gnostics as heretics: their rejection of the Old Testament as the work of the Demiurge, their rejection of the divine origin of the world, and, generally, their extreme cosmid dualism. Their Christology, however, was the most obviously heretical consequence of this extreme dualism].
*************
Jenyar: [i]Yours only exists as a scientific force - in which case I still wonder why you're not content to call it a scientific force, but insist on spiritualising it. *************
M*W: Up until recently, I saw god as a spiritual force, even though I have always had a perception of god as a powerful force of positive energy. I clung to the 'spiritual' explanation, because I "wanted to believe" in a spiritual explanation. However, I now understand the One Spirit of God that dwells in all creation is nothing more than your garden variety of atomic energy that is our life force. If looking at god in this concept seems 'spiritual', perhaps that's to be decided by individual perception. I have now fine-tuned my perception to realize that what I thought was 'spiritual' was nothing more than scientifically explained atomic energy. I still like to think of "god" as a pure force of positive energy. Physics, however, was not my stong suit, so the explanations I've derived at came somewhat late in life. Had I been a more proficient student in the physical sciences, I may have come to this conclusion much sooner.
*************
Jenyar: Has any science ever proved a spiritual realm?
*************
M*W: Yes, the recent discovery of the DMT "spiritual molecule" found in that part of the brain that is identified with hallucinogenic visions and revelations. This is also the part of the brain that is stimulated to "speak in tongues." These things aren't spiritual in the least! They are simple manifestations of the human brain. Perhaps in early humans this area was triggered by stimulation somehow perhaps by including animal protein in the diet. We know that when animal protein was included in the diets of early man, his brain grew in size, and I would suspect became more developed. Then, at that point in our evolution, the spiritual molecule developed as early man tried to explain the magnificance of the universe as they saw it (sun, moon and stars), the objects over which they had no control. That which was greater than them, they feared and awed. From early man to the man on the moon (last century), the desire to understand that which is beyond our immediate universe will continued to be pursued with fear and awe until we conquer it.

MW:

Trinity is not three gods in one. That is such a silly, tired argument that critics make. I suggest reading the Bible, from whence is the doctrine of Trinity.

In any case, it certainly is more logical than a "powerful force of positive energy". Honestly speaking, most people think you are full of crap but they only tolerate you because you like to congratulate anyone who rejects God.

§our§tar: MW: Trinity is not three gods in one. That is such a silly, tired argument that critics make. I suggest reading the Bible, from whence is the doctrine of Trinity.
*************
M*W: I have read the bible, and at a more ignorant stage of my life, I was a good, bible believing christian. There is doubt that the trinity is discussed in the bible. At one time, I too, believed in the trinity, but now I know it's impossible to look at it through the eyes of a christian.
*************
SourStar: In any case, it certainly is more logical than a "powerful force of positive energy". Honestly speaking, most people think you are full of crap but they only tolerate you because you like to congratulate anyone who rejects God.
*************
M*W: Yeah, right! There is NOTHING more logical than science. You know, I don't care what "most people think." I am not here to win friends and live up to everyone else's expectations. Just like the message you christians bring, I have a message that I'm bringing to people, and I will continue to do so until the flames of christianity die out. I'm not asking for anyone's "toleration." I could care less. However, by the numbers of PMs I get daily by people asking me to explain more about my beliefs, I have no fear that they don't think what I say is "full or crap." The whole idea of a christian god needs to be rejected. It's so 2000 years ago. You people are the ones who don't know what god is, and now you're freaking out because I say science can prove the existence of an archaic god! Wazza matter, you afraid of science bursting your brainless bubble? If I rejected god, I would say I rejected god, but I've never said that. You read with blinded eyes. That's a serious affliction. So, you obviously don't know the truth. Stay in dreamland you sinner.

§our§tar: MW: Trinity is not three gods in one. That is such a silly, tired argument that critics make. I suggest reading the Bible, from whence is the doctrine of Trinity.
*************
M*W: I have read the bible, and at a more ignorant stage of my life, I was a good, bible believing christian. There is doubt that the trinity is discussed in the bible.

If you have the tolerance and patience to inspect the Scriptures, you will see that each Person of the Trinity is referred to as God and yet there is a consistent belief by the same penmen that there is but ONE God.

Whether or not you believe in the Trinity is a different thing, but whether or not the Trinity is described in the NT is of course, left to the NT texts as I showed in the earlier paragraph.


*************
SourStar: In any case, it certainly is more logical than a "powerful force of positive energy". Honestly speaking, most people think you are full of crap but they only tolerate you because you like to congratulate anyone who rejects God.
*************
M*W: Yeah, right! There is NOTHING more logical than science. You know, I don't care what "most people think." I am not here to win friends and live up to everyone else's expectations. Just like the message you christians bring, I have a message that I'm bringing to people, and I will continue to do so until the flames of christianity die out. I'm not asking for anyone's "toleration." I could care less. However, by the numbers of PMs I get daily by people asking me to explain more about my beliefs, I have no fear that they don't think what I say is "full or crap." The whole idea of a christian god needs to be rejected. It's so 2000 years ago. You people are the ones who don't know what god is, and now you're freaking out because I say science can prove the existence of an archaic god! Wazza matter, you afraid of science bursting your brainless bubble? If I rejected god, I would say I rejected god, but I've never said that. You read with blinded eyes. That's a serious affliction. So, you obviously don't know the truth. Stay in dreamland you sinner.

Sorry to burst your bubble but science isn't what you believe it to be.

You can't use the scientific method to answer questions such as "Did George Washington live?" or "Was Bill Clinton president?". As such is the case, why don't you then logically deem the scientific method to be illogical because it is unable to answer such a question?

It simply makes no sense, therefore, to conclude that if science is unable to prove it, then it cannot be.

As for the Christian God being "so 2000 years ago", I can only shake my head sadly at you for believing that if an idea is from 2000 years ago, then it cannot be true. Such a statement makes no sense whatsoever, for in saying so then you deny all of science as well since science as we know it builds on theories more than 2000 years old.

As for not caring what most people think, you lie, for I have seen you many times saying "I agree" to anyone who denounces Christianity regardless of whether both critics contradict each other. This is another inconstistency.

And lastly, why should I "freak out" because you say science can prove God. As the truth is self attesting, this is no matter to fret over and why should I fear?

Moreover, the science that you so stubbornly tout cannot prove your so-called "pure postive energy" and yet you still believe in it. What inconsistency!

§our§tar: If you have the tolerance and patience to inspect the Scriptures, you will see that each Person of the Trinity is referred to as God and yet there is a consistent belief by the same penmen that there is but ONE God.

SourStar: Whether or not you believe in the Trinity is a different thing, but whether or not the Trinity is described in the NT is of course, left to the NT texts as I showed in the earlier paragraph.
*************
M*W: Please cite specific scriptures that mention the trinity.
*************
SourStar: Sorry to burst your bubble but science isn't what you believe it to be.

You can't use the scientific method to answer questions such as "Did George Washington live?" or "Was Bill Clinton president?". As such is the case, why don't you then logically deem the scientific method to be illogical because it is unable to answer such a question?
*************
M*W: It doesn't require scientific method to prove GW lived or BC was president. History does that for us. History cannot even prove Jesus lived nor can history prove that Jesus died or was resurrected. Science cannot prove that either. It simply cannot be proven. If you have proof, I urge to you publish it. You would become a very rich man!
*************
SourStar: It simply makes no sense, therefore, to conclude that if science is unable to prove it, then it cannot be.
*************
M*W: You are talking about a religious man who supposedly lived 2000 years ago. History, at least, should be able to prove Jesus lived, but history has been unable to do so. I doubt that science could prove anything either. However, I do believe science or quantum physics will be able to prove a "god" concept. But when this happens, and I feel it will be very soon, you xians won't believe it, and you'll go right on believing that God is an old man with a long white beard who sits on clouds and throws lightning bolts at us unworthy humans. This is the xian concept of God. I don't give a rat's ass what you all believe. I don't believe it anymore.
*************
SourStar: As for the Christian God being "so 2000 years ago", I can only shake my head sadly at you for believing that if an idea is from 2000 years ago, then it cannot be true. Such a statement makes no sense whatsoever, for in saying so then you deny all of science as well since science as we know it builds on theories more than 2000 years old.
*************
M*W: Human thought processes evolve over time -- they mature beyond the fear and awe of some ancient myth created by heretics.
*************
SourStar: As for not caring what most people think, you lie, for I have seen you many times saying "I agree" to anyone who denounces Christianity regardless of whether both critics contradict each other. This is another inconstistency.
*************
M*W: There is no inconsistency here. I am an antichristian, and I will always denounce christianity as long as I live! When I read that others denounce christianity, I commend them, because they have deconverted from christianity -- the first step necessary to find the one true God.
*************
SourStar: And lastly, why should I "freak out" because you say science can prove God. As the truth is self attesting, this is no matter to fret over and why should I fear?

Moreover, the science that you so stubbornly tout cannot prove your so-called "pure postive energy" and yet you still believe in it. What inconsistency!
*************
M*W: Science can and has proven the existence "pure positive energy." I believe this is what god is. There is no need to anthropmorphize this energy. Call it spirit if you want. That's what I called it for a long time, but I see it more clearly now, yet, I still don't see myself as an atheist. I believe in the power of the universe, and I am part of it. That makes humanity and all of creation (Nature) God. You don't have to believe what I believe, but what I believe is as real to me as your concept of God is real to you. My god can be explained by science, but your's cannot. That's the difference.